The need of the moment is to exercise discernment so as to not be led astray by strange doctrines (Heb. 13:9) and every passing opinion (Eph. 4:4), but to hold to “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). That is by no means easy just now, and all of us ought to humble ourselves and pray for the grace of perseverance, that we might obey the command to “set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2) and “watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life” (Lk. 21:34).

I think that I testify to a common experience at present when I say that I approach professedly Christian outlets with wariness. So much is put forth as Christian these days that has no bearing on the faith, which is merely a political or cultural idea clothing itself in Christian garb, the better to win sympathy. Indeed, there is a determined effort by certain actors to infiltrate the church and professedly Christian outlets, and to use such forums to advance their preferred agendas. For example, it is widely known that evangelicals are some of the staunchest supporters of the Israeli state, and it is clear that there has been a determined effort to reduce evangelical support for Israel by holding it out in an unsympathetic light as oppressive to Christians in particular, and as unjust in general.

Now if people were content only to say that this is a civil question about which believers might differ, and to refute the theological errors upon which some people build their support of Israel – to refute them, that is, as theological errors – this would not be objectionable. Questions of war, diplomacy, politics, international relations, alliances, etc. are things of this world, and believers are free to hold what opinions they please as conscience, circumstances and prudence commend. Certain positions within those topics bear a moral element and thus relate to faith, but the difficulty of the moment is that loud voices have been raised in Christian forums regarding the present strife in Gaza as being a quintessentially moral and theological conundrum, and suggesting that believers must take a given position or be guilty of hypocrisy and other sin.

Hence Jim Fitzgerald implied that evangelicals who support Israel are “selling their souls,” and a rhetorician in Ramallah troubled the church by implying it would be in terrible straits with Christ if it did not make its voice heard against Israel’s alleged oppression. Both authors accused Israel of “genocide,” a word which has been so much misused in the last couple of years – and which is so poorly defined in international agreements[1] – that it has perhaps been forever stripped of all usefulness. Now of course if Israel is guilty of war crimes it follows that believers do poorly to support her, and are harming their Christian witness by doing so. Hence the propagandists in our midst have settled on that accusation of genocide with special zeal.

They have thus turned this civil question into one in which Christians are pressed to make a choice, and they have put immense pressure on them to take their preferred side. Now as Christians we are slaves to Christ, and we might well ask what he would do in similar circumstances.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (Lk. 13:1-3)

It is unknown who these Galileans were, nor what they had done that resulted in their deaths. Going off of the other history of Pilate and the Jews of that time, it is possible that Pilate murdered them on some slight pretext to demoralize the Jews. It is possible as well that they were members (real or suspected) of a seditious group that opposed Roman rule (comp. Acts 5:37). Either way, a pagan oppressor had killed members of God’s covenant people and defiled his temple, and Jesus’ audience wished to know his opinion of the matter; and he, far from denouncing either Rome or the Galileans for injustice, used it to call men to repent personally, lest they also perish in such circumstances. He made a political controversy into an opportunity for evangelism, in other words. (Something many evangelicals would be embarrassed by today.)[2]

Elsewhere he prophesied Jerusalem’s destruction, lamenting it bitterly (Matt. 23:37-39), but also warning his disciples to flee when that time came (24:15-20). We might therefore be forgiven if we of today decline to make any direct comment on the justice of Israel’s actions and instead urge professing believers there to flee the war as they are able (comp. Matt. 10:23). And we might be forgiven further if we look at the matter and see that it is obvious that Israel is far from being like Rome in its treatment of the territories and peoples with which it is at war. For Rome’s severity was great: often in war it would strike its enemies utterly, destroying their cities with no respect for civilian life or property, great buildings being cast down (as the Jerusalem temple) and the inhabitants slain and enslaved en masse.

Yet God, speaking through the Apostles, commands us to honor the emperor (1 Pet. 2:17; Rom. 13:7). May one not also then support one’s own nation’s ally when it fights a defensive war into which it was drawn by an invasion of its own land and the slaughter of its own citizens? For though such war has been miserable, it has not been openly genocidal, but waged under very difficult circumstances in heavily-populated territory, against an honorless enemy that readily hides among the civilian population, and which uses normally sacrosanct locations (hospitals, schools, etc.) as bases.

It is a bitter truth, but it is simply impossible to fight a war in such circumstances without killing large numbers of non-combatants, even where attempts are made to minimize such casualties, as Israel does with things like leaflets and ‘roof knocking.’ “War means fighting, and fighting means killing,” as General Forrest put it; and the modern corollary to that is that fighting in an urban environment means killing lots of non-combatants, unless one evacuates it or surrenders it uncontested—which Hamas was never going to do.

Now I say all this not to defend Israel’s war but because the truth commends it, and because I have long tired of seeing believers who support Israel slandered and manipulated for doing so. Personally, I regard Israel’s war in Gaza as unjust as actually conducted. I do so because the only war that is defensible is a war that aims for a permanent peace, and the only hope of permanent peace is by a permanent separation of the combatants. That can only be done by Israel annexing Gaza and expelling the present inhabitants (far abroad, not to the somewhat misnamed West Bank).

Elsewise it is only a matter of time before there will be another war, which means all the previous killing will have been for naught, the mere aimless shedding of blood. There has been so much fighting since 2006 that it is hard to keep track, but this is at least the fifth major conflict in Gaza since that time. And how could it be otherwise? Hamas has as its raison d’être the destruction of Israel and has said that a) everything it does, even mass murder, is justified;[3] and b) every ceasefire to which it consents is just a tactical pause so that it can regroup for its larger war.[4] To negotiate a ceasefire with such a group is morally wrong (and here our own president is guilty of naivete and folly), as it ensures future bloodshed.

Still, the wrong of which Israel is slanderously accused is different from the wrong of which it is actually guilty. It is a very different thing to support a government that acts unwisely than to support a malicious one. To not support a government because it acts or has acted unwisely would be to be an anarchist, which is forbidden us. And again – and most importantly by far – we are citizens of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world, and therefore have a right to differ about this matter, and even to conclude that it is not a good use of our time to give much attention to a military and political crisis on the other side of the world.

Or to present another example, there are many voices within Christian forums who now take a dim view of civilian ownership of firearms. I saw an article recently by a PCA member who started it with a picture of Jesus (read: the artist’s imagined Jesus) breaking a gun over his knee. Such a violation of the second commandment and reimagining Jesus after one’s preferred political beliefs is sorely erroneous. That article was paywalled, but was called “Second Commandment > Second Amendment.” There are probably more guns than people where I live, and I suspect one would struggle to find anyone who disagrees with that statement—in principle. But if by it the author means, as he presumably does, that neighbor love requires some sort of disarmament, then naturally one would find disagreement on that point.

Gun ownership is a civil matter about which believers might differ. There are good reasons for not owning a gun (suicidal ideation), and there are good reasons for owning one, as defense of one’s life, hunting, and recreation. It is certainly lawful to own a gun and to use it under certain circumstances. The law which prohibits murder also permits the conditional slaying of housebreakers (Ex. 22:2-3).[5] Yet there are professedly Christian voices who speak as though it is a sin to own a gun at all, and who act as though one is required to be a victim of robbery, rape, and murder rather than defend themselves against such things.[6]

One might be forgiven for thinking that neighbor love requires defending them from wrongdoers, and that bearing arms in such cases is therefore loving. To suggest otherwise is just taking a political position[7] and repackaging it as Christian when it has nothing as such to do with the faith. (And the honesty of such political argumentation may be fairly questioned . . .)

Or again, there are many people who like to speak of ‘economic justice,’ and who speak as though something approaching equality of income and possessions is required in this life, with any deviation from it being inherently unjust and attributable only to some sinful cause (extortion, dishonest business practices, what have you). This too is held forth in moral and doctrinal language, and much is made of Christians’ duties in this respect. There is an agitation in South Carolina to change the laws regarding evictions, some parts of which seem potentially reasonable, but others of which are doubtful. The rhetoric in which the thing proceeds is simply wrong and betrays a spirit of covetousness, things like ‘housing is a right’ and saying that the state’s relatively high eviction rate is unjust without any attempt in considering why it is so high or whether most of those evictions are justified.

Saying you have a right to someone else’s property, especially when you fail to honor a contract regarding it (i.e., to pay your rent), is wrong. And yet many churches and faith-based groups are going along with it, thus trampling the commandments against covetousness and lying. Judging by the rhetoric, I fear some of them might even revile and slander those that dissent, which things are devilish.

Many other examples could be brought forward from various political factions (hence also my opposition to the so-called Christian Nationalists). The need of the moment is to exercise discernment so as to not be led astray by strange doctrines (Heb. 13:9) and every passing opinion (Eph. 4:4), but to hold to “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). That is by no means easy just now, and all of us ought to humble ourselves and pray for the grace of perseverance, that we might obey the command to “set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (Col. 3:2) and “watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life” (Lk. 21:34).

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] Hence the many reservations expressed even by signatories of the genocide prevention convention, as seen at the UN’s site for it here.

[2] Hence more than a few act as though one is guilty of not only a faux pas but a serious act of passive cruelty if a political complaint is redirected into spiritual channels. Imagine if Black Lives Matter protestors approached Jesus (or any of his contemporary ministers) and asked about cases of alleged police brutality, and received this response. Many well-meaning Christians, swept up in the tide of the moment, would be sorely embarrassed at Jesus ‘minimizing’ or ‘denying’ the suffering the BLM types were lamenting in such a hypothetical case. And the protestors themselves would no doubt trot out their favorite slander of “silence is violence.” If this be doubted, I invite the reader to consult the 2020 ‘heinous killings’ statement published by an anonymous group of PCA agency heads at ByFaith.

[3] As in Ghazi Hamad’s interview here: https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/hamas-official-vows-to-repeat-deadly-israel-attacks-there-will-be-a-second-a-third-a-fourth-israeli-terrorist-fight-invasion-october-7-palestine-war-jerusalem

[4] Hence Hamas’ 2017 principles state that “Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance.” Available here: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

[5] Most commentators agree that a thief in the night could be slain with impunity because of the difficulty of ascertaining his intentions (not least whether he was armed or had company), and of identifying and apprehending him. In the daytime he could be recognized and thereby be brought to the justice prescribed in vv. 1 and 4, and therefore he was to be restrained otherwise than by lethal force. Note that this applies to thieves being resisted and apprehended as thieves; it does not necessarily prohibit slaying an assailant who intended to commit violence. It is also a fair question what structures this applies to: given the wider context is livestock theft, it seems probable it is not exhausted with one’s domicile but extends to one’s other buildings. I.e., where a thief breaks in (be it barn or house), he may be resisted with lethal force if that be necessary. If he were to voluntarily surrender or be taken otherwise, though, he was not to be treated with lethal force. One may not execute one whom he has successfully resisted or apprehended for theft, a principle in which the laws of men generally concur.

[6] I speak of one’s experience as a citizen, not cases of persecution.

[7] While I dare not name this position, it is that one which regards criminals as victims of social circumstances and that shifts the blame for their actions to society, thus implying that resistance to them is an injustice in its own right. In its extreme form it seems to regard theft as being a justifiable form of ‘wealth redistribution,’ but even in lesser forms it regards it as a citizen’s duty to be a willing victim, with the proper response to crime being a wide array of social programs meant to alleviate the conditions that allegedly breed it, rather than resistance by would-be victims or punishment by the state.